penguin on it or crown can say especially or penguin and others it has a number of wires so there's a number of people using it depending on what the sort of calamity a joint responsibility not the responsibility of one or the other. >> i have one question regarding the no or notice a member of the public mentioned the dimensions were no, no it in the notification does our company provide that. >> you've seen as part of the i think you've seen the actual notice that is given and it is mailed notice and notice on the poles 0 notice to the neighborhood association it as prescribed verbiage on it and it

includes what we call photo simulation a fancy word that means. >> i have it in front of the me now. >> oh, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> we'll take rebuttal from the department. >> public works i wanted to make a not to the record not referenced by the appellants we did realize that the conditions on the permit itself explicit match those listed on the tenant approvals we would like to ask the board approval to modify those conditions on the permit to match those within the approvals they're not huge it is things like you know there erroneous part for example, the

poles be repained to match the area and whereas the correct one on the tentative approval would say you know pink, the attachments either non-glossy to make it a little bit more pleasant and the conditions were written for a different project to verizon wireless we're prototyping the antenna for city owned transit poles for example, in north beach have a flag conditions to think maintaining that flag to maintain the area we're including those conditions of approval i can respond to the

other conditions recommended to the planning code the planning department is looking for the san francisco justice department of the planning code specifically not in the public right-of-way on tops of buildings and so on that planning code discussion is tentative we would have no bearing open is public right-of-way and article 25 lastly with reference to russian hill the proposal that came in before this board as well in russian hill featured much smaller equipment so the equipment boxes were the size of the binder and as at all as the pole and didn't create noise if this system is opposed with a box much wider than the pole and cooling fans we'll ask for sorry tighter context like parts of russian hill so that's why i was

referring to why it was context based or not. >> thank you for the clarification. >> i'm confused about the permit situation is the permit not before us correct. >> the planning department conditions that were included within those permit their including language a different type of facility for instance, the cable is inside of the pole it is a steel pole. >> but the permit is not accurately written; correct. >> it has an accurate description but the permit were erroneous they referred to some instances they don't refer to the pole. >> the conditions are part of permit. >> we have a small issue. (clapping.) please, please >> not appropriate to this setting. >> other questions. >> no. >> i have a question has planning been suited by itself

utilities at all. >> they were challenged basically because of state law their exempt if you will, and no right to look at ceqa a new pole and noise and preservation and also said we have no right to require a new permit every two years and no right to ply the tentative equipment when the cased concluded the judge said the city get to apply those the residents get letters and the city gets to apply ceqa but not prohibited those facilities we fiat get to apply a segregation in an your honor, area not wanting those areas we don't have that opportunity the court ruled against the city we can't

have a permit to 2 years so we misdemeanor it to 10 years every 10 years and the rules regarding modifications complflthd with the federal law section 6409 of the job creation act. >> i'm aware of that but has planning been suited by a utility by any denial. >> not that i'm aware of one lawsuit. >> where planning denied i know how much time we've been sunday night (laughter) >> not that i'm aware of. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> beyond the scope they've ever denied. >> i could start you know i

think advertised interesting because many of the people in this room have not been here before on those particular issues a couple of sites on previous issues but this board has heard appeals on utility, infrastructure installation so for quite a few years and run the game bet from on poles and on the sidewalks on streets and the evolution of the ability to comment to change on those has been from something more broader to something that is extremely narrow and the reason is that

every time something happens that is contrary to the interests of the utilities there was a lawsuit and they have been many lawsuits this board at least during mire tenure has been sued 6 times related to those particular issues the question is a great question raised by one of the speakers related to how this board views it's ability to evaluate, change, modify are deny con forms with article 25 that is a good question but one that already states ware bound by article 25 and based on the

number of lawsuits there is a severe limitation to the board on that basis the - question that most people are raising and i'm not speaking necessarily to all of the cases as one speaker said, yes every case is individual it is separate, however, the issue is you're bringing up not necessarily ones that can be dealt with by the departmental representatives, the term that is used is an tangled by them is not correct the planning department has tried to do their best in managing the built environment and dpw has done their best workplace the limbs

they have the issue is a legislative one one based upon an obsolete law which you know governs everybody it provides tremendous final incentives for free i don't think that is just a personal not note official position here but one that i think we understand why then lawsuits occur at the drop of a hat in particular instance and case from the conditions are incorrect i don't think we have a valid permit. >> to follow up i actually was going to mention something after someone is from the public that advocates further down the line spoke and as my fellow commissioners so eloquently said a lot of the

reasons that a lot of the legislation and reasons why there is a narrow band for the brotherhoods is because of laced several years we've gone directly toe-to-toe for the public and the citizens of san francisco and on several of the occasions we have lost i understand that i personally will not want a communication whether on the ground or pole in front of my house api i've stated that pubically in hearings past wear limited to what we can do that's why article 25 was amended and legislative powers is strict some of the directs we can go but i understand this is very important we all understand it is very important to every single one of i'm a year here at 3 years it's been the bulk of my

time here that we faced other utility companies on a weekly weekly basis times 10 or 15. >> yeah. there was a reason why i asked the city attorney to give us a synopsis of article 25 it is frustrating for us to sit here and you know if i were sitting in the public and one of the appellants the appellant open this case i would be looking at me and saying oh, he's copying out unfortunately, we're not copying out we're protected by an action this is unfortunate and i think this appellant

mentioned the chairman of the installer of those boxes probably didn't have a box in front of their window i concur on that one i'm sure that the would-be upsetting if you want to volunteer any representatives 5 of them sitting in front of us if they have a box installed in front of their window it would be frustrating to feel like a cop-out but commissioner fung is right until the legislation changes and the law changes we're kind of bound by it i would hope that dpw would fight the fight with the owners of the

polls to make sure, in fact, they have structural integrity so which one comes fall down it only takes one to kill somebody i hope that dpw is deliberate diligent to keep the integrity of those poles when i hear comments of a 1996 fcc guideline i bought this phone looeshg last week it is obsolete today that's technology the fact we're operating under a 1996 fcc guideline sprikz me as somehow behind the robin williams show it is a joke we're unfortunately again, we're subject to the law and legislation here and so also the side your local

legislator >> needless i'm preempting commissioner wilson i'm hearing we need to upheld the permit under art 25 but we have a defective shall we ask the city attorney to have this the continuance what's the course of action. >> the conditions raised more of a noticing requirement than anything else whether the public received notice of conditions of the permit they'll like to approve as opposed to whether or not you on the public this information will have been material to the public and assessment of the permit. >> i think so. >> the italian flags on the

poles. >> except nobody raised it. >> but i don't think in a material sense in a substantive sense in terms of the permit article 25 give us the authority to deny the permit based on this unless we have a noticing problem. >> do we have a noticing problem? >> well. >> perhaps ask the department how they view the validity of their permit. >> i think the key thing primarily or explicitly the paint and carli short department of public works thank you. i think there were a couple of conditions that were basically pulled from the wrong planning conditions permit, however, the conditions that were listed on the tentative approval so the

conditions that the public received primary notice these those are the correct conditions we issued the former permit we environmental parts the wrong conditions if this is a noticing problem it is not a problem the conditions were included all the conditions i think none of them was raised as a concern so none of them were identified from the appellant in my estimation they're relatively minor details for example, they refer paint color so green versus the more neutral in those cases not substantive changes. >> they contained why they're in the pole rather than outside the pole. >> again, the conditions that the public saw doesn't create that. >> your asserting it with no

noticing issue. >> no noticing issue. >> i'll disagree with you the fact that the conditions of the issued permit were different than what with was in the original notice creates a notice issue. >> expect we'll request this board if you, you approve. >> i'm not going to do that i won't accept modified as a special condition of this hearing. >> okay. >> well, of course, that's up to you but our request would be the conditions that were using noticed be the conditions applied to the permit. >> just to clarify that. >> maybe i jumped the gun that's my intent. >> let's talk to to. >> what would you propose commissioner.

>> well, they, reapply. >> i would agree with that. >> the permit holder can reapply. >> yep. >> i'm not inclined to go that way. >> there is a noticing issue the public has a right to see the actual conditions of the permitted are and in the conditions in the original notice whereas when we said and the ones for the issued permit were different that creates a noticing issue. >> i'm going to move that the appeal be denied it conforms with article 25. >> any further discussion? okay >> okay. so a motion from the

wanting to deny the appeal and uphold the permit that it compiles and. >> on the order are you incorporating the correct conditions as the modification to the permit. >> yes. >> okay. so if this is the case i would ask those conditions be submitted to the board because i won't know how to enforce that. >> now you can hand to the clerk thank you. >> so is it clear mr. masonry on that document is the entire document needed to be incorporated into the permit maybe you can put it on the overhead the commissioners don't mind. >> the conditions. >> that is upside down. >> those conditions with the planning department conditions one through 10 applied to this

site and no other site. >> wait are you saying that is applicable to every other permit before us tonight. >> four of the 6. >> and is it replacing the mraung u language that all of the items under the planning department conditions. >> correct. >> all of those are taken out and all those put in. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> just the planning department conditions tdpw and dph are the same. >> that's correct. >> so i think i got lost millennium moving to uphold the permit. >> i know, but i need clarification on the something the conditions that were provided to the public at the

time of the notice were different from the conditions that we just saw that are being - >> what happens the correct conditions. >> i guess. >> was sent to the public so the department feels no notification problem. >> what was handed to the clerk are the same conditions that the public got in their notice. >> oh, okay. >> that's - >> i thought that was. >> that's what the department is saying okay. >> so commissioner president lazarus try to restate. >> mined our motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the permit that complies with article 25 and the condition the permit be revised to replace the planning department conditions in the issued permit with the ones that were submitted tonight. >> i'm sorry no additional public comment at this time were in dilatation and commissioner

fung no commissioner vice president honda no commissioner wilson no and commissioner swig no okay. that motion fails on a vote of 1 to four there are any other motion otherwise this permit will be uphold as is by default. >> i'll make a motion. >> that move it the permit be revoked on the basis that notice was incorrect. >> okay so we have a motion by commissioner fung to grants the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that notice was incorrect. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus no commissioner vice president honda

commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay with a vote of 4 to one that motion does pass and this permit is denied on that basis. >> okay so we will move on to the next item item number 6 appeal elizabeth sale and matthew versus the department of public works for the mapping on 29 avenue protesting the onions on july 30th with the network of california inc. for the construction of a facility application number - and we will start with the appellant. >> 7 minutes.

>> i'm a residents on 29 avenue i'm the appellant on this permit many of my arguments are similar to those this evening i'll add more we feel my husband and i a geologist we've been residents 10 east at the location for 10 years this installation will be disrupt active if from and health prospective i'll speak peppering perp i know the regulations of article 25 but some of the research i've done the tower itself will be installed xroos from our deck the deck we used registration for entertaining and hanging out with our neighbors that live enernex nbc to us with our children visually it is disruptive a health concern i

submitted a photograph here as you can see right outside our window and according to a company in the bay area the healthy building science they recommend in the practices of ems for when our building installing items within areas outside of buildings it is recommend that you build in the neighborhood with or without wireless services and building not in the the building is not in direct site of antennas they have research on that regulations i realize those are been towers have been fcc approved but according to council how many are installed in the last few years and installed collectively does that

include the amounts we live in one of the biggest tech service plenty of broadband service and plenty of service i did not need more outside of my window my husband said where are decree being installed in golden gate park or outside of my residence i have a family member that as severe immune problems and known by decreasing mold and electrical and various types of environmental hazards that effects the immune system that effects longevity open health next door they have smaller children and can be effect by those kinds of things i have you know on new evidence from

doctors to submit i don't understand why we need more we heard if crown castle more tower in the outer richmond i submit that photo with the deck and telephone pole installed right outside of our window thank you very much. >> add anything? into i'm sorry. i'm matt we still have not seen the engineering we don't know the weight and size and the effects on the pole we can't verify the engineering they've done what they sent us in the mail a picture nfsz it and really not given us information that is something we need at least for the public to see and i think

this is good enough >> thank you, sir as the appellant you received the response brief from permit holder with all the equipment listed. >> it does but not seemed like it had a the weight or anything along that lines. >> thanks. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> thank you again dynamic a martyr fine planning man above of the crown. >> we need you to speak into the mike please. martin fine man on behalf of the permit holder this particular appeal, in fact, the appellant didn't file a brief in supportive of their appeal they have a asserted two grounds tonight the first has to do with with rfp physicians and the

second with views as far as r f emission it i think that was a direct statement by the appellants they're asking this body to take into account r f emissions you've already been counseled by the city attorney's office and heard and read in the briefing ♪ matter it is simply not a matter this body can, in fact, take into account federal law an explicit at this point that cities and states and localities are not allowed to deny permits for the r f emissions if in compliance with the fcc standards. here that is absolutely required

it's been submitted a r f certification we'll fully imply with the standards and is going to have to be a second round of dpeems that is erected and installed and third according to conditions attached by the city to the permit that is further testing requested by any residents so frankly it is actually quite rare to see appellants in a situation like this to be blunt in asking you to do something that is a claim violations for federal laws required under 24 ordinance the other point having to do with views in fact, a reminder once again under section 115 of the ordinance it limits your review here today to what is permit as

a standard under the ordinance and section 109 b-2 of the ordinance didn't allow for the concerns about views and light having said that, on the other hand, in this instance for this permit the planning department did review the issues and made a follower determination that no conditions were necessary in order to address the view or light issues they explained and indicated because of the location on antenna and the distance of the facility from the appellants home i guess i'd like to make one final comment perhaps just a flip slip of the tongue seefrment he heard the appellant describe this as a tower i don't want a understanding on the record by the board no tower

involved we're talking about putting a few small pieces of equipment on to telephone pole no tower involved we're not talking about buildings tower one or two like along the freeway only a telephone pole with other infrastructure on it unless other questions thank you very much >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> gene chang public works i don't have much to say only the concerns of the r f we the public health department has looked at the reports and some have verified within the federal guidelines on the issues of the visible

disruption i'll leave that to my colleague omar. >> thank you planning department staff with respect to the views given the poles are 14 feet away from the nearest windows and the site of the equipment not obstruct of compare the residential windows it is in a significant matter a.d. to the context we have many sites of workload go poles when our health department few in the country have the sophisticated meter has gone out and done testing in someone's residential tweldz on the 2 and 3 floor the emissions from those wooden poles is about one percent of what the fcc public exposure so a lot of concerns are those

sites saying band in berkley and upper europe the european union as similar students and switzerland has more constrictor standards those facilities will generally at the end to comply with the overseas standard i hope that context maybe of use to the public and board as well. >> is this one have north beach colors. >> what. >> does this permit have north beach colors. >> no. >> the conditions with accurate and the conditions are accurate. >> thank you any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none then we'll have rebuttal. >> you have public comment on this item? okay >> hi i take it leslie.

>> could you speak into the mike and i live over 35 avenue near one of the installation i'm a bit concerned in that i guess i need clarification it so you would dpw staff is completing permit applications on behalf of the castle that feels last week, a conflict of interest if you said there was a paste and copy. >> please direct our comments to the board and not staff. >> it sounds like the dpw staff was involved telegraph hill in filling out the permit not crown castle omar was speaking he said we have 3 hundred and some boxes in the city is it sounds like he is conflicted in terms of his

alleviation with crown castle is there any additional public comment seeing none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> i would add mr. swigs comments of the accumulation of the boxes not from an ascetical point but how many will it take and many per street before there will be absconder everyone of the emission be realized i personally have not seen the comments earlier the size the box and how heavy that had been and how much weight will be resting into the pole and i think we need a little bit more

information i heard from crown castle they'll do a series of once those are installed they'll do testing with the residents and i want to see when and how that will happen and that process into action if this permit is approved thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holder. >> i'll be very brief the appellant is argue that the permit should be denied on the basis that the effects or alleged effect of the r f emissions that's been discussed at length and absolutely something that federal government has removed from your

productive has authorize actively protective will i this board is not to use as a basis for the permit the second issue has to do with with views you've heard from the gentleman a matter that was taking into consideration considerable distance from those facility to the house the size and location of the pole and the distance indicate that is not an issue but it is an issue that was considered it was not deemed to be grounds for denial it has been thoroughly considered all the way up the lard by dpw and planning department the last matter i think some of the appellants have lost sites they've get the notice in the mail posted on the post on another pole that is prescribed

by the ordinance but they're told the actual application is on file if he wanted they can go to the dpw as the case maybe and get a copy of the application and satisfy other concerns if they like so with that, i would respectfully ask that the that i will be denied and the permit uphold. >> and rebuttal from the department any, any. >> mr. chang please come up so there is not further confusion will be explain the fact the permit is issued by your department in conjunction to the permit applicant. >> yes. the permit is issued if fliengs in conjunction with other city department.

>> by the department of public works. >> correct. correct. >> the question was also you do not do the application they do the application. >> correct. >> we review the application along with the planning department the public health department and as needed rec and park department. >> thank you. >> i have a question on your response to those cases some of them show the radius map they include the property that received the mail notice within the hundred and 50 feet some of the briefs have this and some don't say there a reason why. >> i'm not sure why. >> as an example this case there is a letter in there that shows where the nos o notice or so were tacked into the poles no

radius map and the list of the properties within hundred and 50 feet that is issued by and in this case an address research i was not familiar with that's being used in some of the other ones; right? >> i think i can address that in this case we didn't submit no appellant brief typically if there is a question about 90s or issues we'll tried to include that information we didn't respond to an appellant breech a that was not included. >> overhead this is the radius map prepared for the specific pole location. >> okay it is included as part of

application but not provided to the board of appeals. >> sir, you referenced we are somebody gone out to test of the r f frequency inside a home would it be a situation there is multiple devices so a cumulative emission. >> the public health department has a meter not discriminating and looking at those by crown castle by t mobile it will take into emissions by the cell phone or wi assess inside a >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners i'm going to ask for a continuance on this case article 25 i think we all read

and studied extensively and one of the things that this board has it's the notable responsibility to verify that notice was proper i can't verify that if i don't see the list of who went to on the radius map to verify i've heard from both parties that was done, however, i'm not able to verify myself. >> motion? >> i've move to continue this as a mutually acceptable date either the department provides that are the permit holders provides that okay. how long do you need? >> madam director.

>> you want to add it to next week's calendar we can do that we need the materials by the end of the day tomorrow is that possible. >> how heavy is our load next week? >> it is pretty light. >> okay. >> okay. >> so i will state for your information i have to leave around 7 o'clock next and i have so leave at the same time as well. >> we'll not meet past 7 o'clock we need 4 people here so you may want to put it on a different date. >> what would you recommend on. >> on the next meeting the 28. >> okay.

>> is that acceptable to the permit holder and the department? october 28th and to the appellant? >> okay overwhelming to move to continue this case for the production of the alleged materials related to notice to october 28th and that's for the department to provide no other briefings beside what the department provides; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> well on that motion if commissioner fung continue this matter to october 28th to allow time for the department to provide he was the materials to the board commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson no commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to one

moving on to item 7 appeal number ludwig versus the department of public works to the mapping the property on 7th avenue protesting the issuance to the california ink of a wireless box personal wireless facility alters location number 14 plus and we will leo allow the appellant to present. >> hi there i have a lot of slides will they turn on automatically. >> once you reference the overhead well, i'm glad to see you as you may know u as you may know the wireless carries or carriers with rocking u walking over the city and rubber stamping and crown castle doing whatever they

president in san francisco there's a slide that rick alluded to this this is too much right now the growth in wire box issued is 5 hundred and 17 percent in 2015 not close to the population growth i'm sorry our monitor are flickering. >> can you try to change the and pause the time. >> i'll also hand you those in the 3 minute rebuttal so 5 hundred is the growth. >> hold on one second. >> you can start the time if he is going to continue to press the dark bum and turn towards the machine. >> thank you. >> thank you so as you can see there's a tremendous growth i'm here today those folks are trying to in all install an antenna on my street i'm not

here pause i'm stronger the opponent the opponent has for resources and time and connects than i vw have i'm not here because i'm smarter then the opponent sbe they have seasoned attorneys that will get what we want i'm not here because i know the right things to oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light say people don't know how to approach you or don't understand what is happening i'm really here to ask for your help for the homeowners and residents of my neighborhood we need our help and courage unfortunately, the elected officials are trying to satisfy phoney baloney i didn't jobs they're political aspirations of the people they serve here's the secret the power you have is from serving the power the power when you serve the homeowners and owners that allow you to do those jobs

you showed tonight how strong dearly i know you're not a phoney baloney i didn't commissioner you curb about the structure and opponent of the city i have to building you ask you've if you're helped the people of san francisco i'm glad you're one of the people that cares dearly did i know that people were not aware that an antenna was approved in my neighborhood i've signed testimonials from people that never ever received a notice and not knowing a mountain was coming into the neighborhood i'm going to hand you this is one person in the neighborhood who doesn't understand thousand how to file a protest and any of the signs this is another person that never received a letter and never saw anything posted on the polls so dpw agreed they forgot to

include how to file a protest it is correct do deny the permit the fact that many of the people in the vicinity of my neighborhoods are still not informed about the antenna and none wools folding informed how to protest dearly i hope you can help us frank given our background i know you understand the problems with degradation and structure of the neighborhood crown wanted to put an antenna within half of block of the park if strollers introduce the neighborhood and en bloc the park view this is our neighborhood as you can see even a stroller would be blocked by the antenna there and here's the clarified view of how the park a blocked because of impaired blocks on a good street

we must deny the project we are not sure that was a good street we should deny the permit frank we need your help in putting a first name only verizon and crown castle and other wireless carriers i know that you care about the health and prosperity of people you work for penguin and know about safety dangers on poles due to the lack of testing there are more and more fires on utility policies poles evidence the current system is not working just one recent new story about how power lines may have caused the sierra fires the good news you're not loan in worry about the safety pole in 2010, the commission voiced strong support in article 25 those are all the commissioners

that approved amazing the additional safety procedures should have been added and i'm asking for your help in the absence of any board of supervisors follow-up on this issue it is in the board of appeals hands and help with the approval open 7 finding avenue rick and bobby i know you, you must be commissioners the people your time is very valuable to you i can only imagine you helped the people imagine with the people from the city they're walking down the street hey, let's put one in front of rick's house and acting like the homeownership's don't matter three hundred plus residents signed documents against the antenna please help us to deny this until they work with us to get a better location

lastly we're not supposed to discuss health i'll repeat one person in the planning department said you'll never win a case with you discuss health that loan is rid we're in san francisco we're not in the city of phoney baloney the reality is this may cause cancer or other effects firefighters are so worried about the effects they band them on their roofs i'll show you this here. >> and so i'm asking you once again for various reasons to deny this permit there are a lot of concerns requiring to adequately give notice to residents in the spirit of the law and the landscape and failure to protect the public safety and even health concerns

i hope you can help us. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening once again i'm martin fine man on behalf of of the permit holder crown castle the first issue that was raised by the appellant this evening has to do with with adequate notice crown castle fully compiled with all the notice and nolo contendere tension otherwise as you may know by now from previous discussion what is riders mailed notice to property owners and residents within hundred and 50 feet mailed no, no is to neighborhood organizations recognized by planning within three hundred feet and posts by in the

effected neighborhood that happened the evidence of that the demonstration of that the cooperation collaboration has been submitted crown did and filed prove in the brief that was filed by the city it concurs that proper notice was given in fact, just sort the the proof is in the pudding sufficient notice people filed protests before the hoff and have an appeal again tonight in genuine issue before notice only frankly on argument that the ordinance ought to be amended and the appellant requires a different notice and, secondly, an issue raised in the paper that was submitted about whether dpw prospering recommended approval the appellant simply proclaims the the planning department in take

into account this was the street that was designated by the city as having a great view view, however, there is plenty of documents in the reader record this shows the planning department did in fact, do the review and did care consider and made the determination it was not a significant issue has to do with with views with the characterization of the neighborhood third at least in the brief that was filed though not repeated tonight there was a question raise about referral to the rec and park department this is not under this is not come under the provision of the owners that required a referral to the rec and park department there is a defined term park protected location this is not quality as a park protected location that is a defined term means

similar to a discussion earlier if under recent a park that is in front of and on the same side the street as the pole that is the subject of application that is not and, in fact, not frankly a photo that was shown by the appellant this is no diego doubt near golden gate park this was raised in the brief a question of the safety of the pole no evidence at all of any safety issue regarding the pole here the safety of the poles is a matter that is comprehensively regulated and occurred by the california utility commission in its general order of 1995 and policed speaks for itself by the jointly i joint pole and pg&e depending on who owns the pole that is an issue.

>> this is similar to many installations that are already existing here in san francisco and else existed on poles without safety incidents whatsoever in the briefing this appellant raised a question about whether a review was done for whether in the the least intrusive means with all respect the appellant mixed up the standards it is out of a different statute and has to do with with federal law relating to the facility but didn't relate to this particular application the standards at issue those so forth in article 25 and didn't require the at least intrusive analysis similarly there was an argument in the brief whether an analysis

was done if necessary it and again necessity is anything that the appellant pass mistakenly deducted from the conditional use permit a larger antenna facility might be placed on private property necessity is not part of article 25 and therefore under section 115 is not even allowable ground for granting the appeal and denying the permit so the last thing i want to come to i'll try to be brief again, we have a fairly you know blunt argument that the permit should be denied based on the public

health concerns or punting leakages about frequency issues as you've heard many times that is not a matter that you are allowed to take into account the city is allowed to take into account in denying such a permit the federal government has comprehensively addressed that in section 332 of the communication act something not something this body is allowed to take into account so with that, i would be very happy to answer any questions. >> and i would urge i to deny the appeal and affirm the permit. >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> gene changing public works first of all, f this is one of the permit where the conditions

don't match and i'd like to go on to say sufficient notice was provided public works received from crown castle an affidavit saying the ordinance was radius not included the tentative notices provide where it can, filed as stated towards the end of the notice again r f verified by the department of public health and in compliance with federal limits referred to the rec and park department was not required for code only required in the proposal locations is on the same side the street and in front of a park so here on golden gate park is not on the adjacent side

as for the comments recommending to the good use street and also pole safety i will hand that over to omar if you don't have any questions. >> one, if you say is is for the earlier permit were the conditions in the notice the correct conditions. >> the conditions in the notice to respect the correct, however, when the permit was issued. >> i wanted to clarify thank you. >> planning department staff reviewed and taking into account like street use assuming they're a good street view and determined if they detract from the residential district attorney from say a purview of locations thank you. >> sir, were you in the

department when it first came up about 5 years ago. >> no, i started 2 and a half years ago. >> can i ask you a question, please. >> what is the age the pole. >> i don't have the information green before me is it agent or safe or dangerous has due diligence been done ton the pole and infrastructure to support the new equipment. >> it will be deferred to on the pole - ii bring up the same point i did before it is really irresponsible of us to move forward when our going to put a piece of equipment on a pole and dpw didn't know the age the pole or the structural integrity place a risk ocher the citizens

that live in the surrounding neighborhood surrounding the pole i don't know how to factor this in you know your - you've got to suffer the nightmare in the middle of the night great thanks. >> any public comment on this item? step forward. >> thank you again, i'm jordan canning take care i have an appeal come on the docket i don't need to come up here and abuse my ability to comment i'd like to use it and support 2, 3, 4 appeal and request the permit be denied one question that i have roadway i have to questions one is i'm wondering given you've set the precedent for

rejecting a permitted on faulty language if we might identify other permits have that same problem and willing to exclude those we could speed along this evening i know my permit has one of the problems i don't know if other people know to say ask that question ask that at least four by dpw own admissions if you'll precede with the same object on each the questions and the second question about our ability to address health concerns and the repeated allegations by dpw and by the crown castle lawyers those are safe limits they talk about the one percent of acceptable threshold that is a measurement

not taken from the street not near the actual dps devices i'll note the architecture place have living quarters on the second floor above the garage the fanciful idea we'll float near the tower is the architecture realty of this architecture in the richmond district we're not talking about the exposure at ground floor but the exposure as you face with an the towers in a residential home i building that politics applies to all of the cases here tonight thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> any way to plug this in? no?

>> mr. masonry do you know know. >> holding it here. >> oh, i see okay overhead please. >> overhead please. >> testing testing better technology? >> (laughter) is there a wireless devices. >> sir, you, call media services. >> they'll call us.

>> there we go. >> it was kind of shocking. >> (laughter). >> you can start her time. >> okay this is in reference to fire safety and pole safety it is on o farrell street in our san francisco ethics commission i think pg&e would agree their publishing the fact that power lines down are dreadful it says here they are dreadful and that's not going to work.

>> it won't go forward. >> yeah. but i can't make that move i need the next picture offering there we go. >> the fire department when lines come down fire department must i think their dangerous they sent 4 fire trucks with lines come down that is the evidence of the fire trucks when the lines come down so contrary to crown castles statement is fire safety is not an issue we see clearly fire safety is an issue some of the other people here tonight wanted to know they didn't understand when it might look like in their neighborhood here's a view ever at&t installation this one says how dangerous on the this is the

minor at&t installation you'll notice the size of this box and the antenna here's another installation i believe tomcast it looks like on the pole that is what we live with and the minor antenna that is not protruding much and causes none any view issues those are the boxes that are placed on the exist poles or the new replaced poles that are very small the word small and square feet is used they're not small and discrete this is an excellent view that references golden gate park where it does matter with the public seize where those discrete installations are being made this is another example this

like golden gate park is a national historic district where those are installed and mr. swigging i couldn't do when it is too much i believe we have reached too much. >> that is the view on filbert street that is the wiring that's been strung. >> what we're looking at on filbert street thank you. >> too much. >> is there any additional public comment on this item please step forward. >> my name is a cam i'm going to make a comment on this from comcast. >> you see it okay. the reason why this is the residents

okay okay. it is telephone self-center in california and the individual from santa fe and the residents is explicit say only occupant whatever the address looks like people want to see this at that time, they'll not on this is coming from you that's why people doesn't even receive this later but don't know anyhow thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal sir, you have 3 minutes and mr. ken tar you know how to take this off the overhead. >> looks like he want the overhead. >> i also wanted to leave copies of the slide i was told he could leave it. >> does the board want to

accept. >> those are signed documents of people who were uninformed i need them back you mentioned he could leave them and get a copy. >> you want to see those. >> great. >> i want to cover a couple of points and respectfully rick's views of article 25 the people were not informed how to protest that was not in the document and not and a violation of article 25 even without that people were not informed you say the letter people are not informed i have a lot of signed documents people were not informed the safety of the pole is a huge issue that was a fire about 3 weeks ago i think i referred it in my brief but a big issue and a clause allows the board to step in and when the self-regulation did

work tonight we were heard another great statement by a few people the self-reasonable certainty oversees miss bastard on the poles didn't sound like a good answer i be you know i want to mention the fourth point the conditions were inconcrete those are points that relate to power but i want to mention one more thing how important you're really is in our society and how important in times when is questionable so i'll put this up this is from 1953 and this does it work? >> overhead please. it is from 1953 a court hearing if we ever see that a court hearing - this is a court

hearing the tobacco industry and one of the argument that was used at this time to say that the lawsuit was eir relevant the national cancer institute found no link between cigarette smoking and cancer that was the argument then you maybe familiar with something like this more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette the reality people cement smoking and tobacco companies kept winning it took california another 40 years to changes that this is reminding me of a lot of things similar type of arguments i know this may be out ever article 25 but the importance that people like you play in our society it goes way beyond normal things thank you for your time.

>> we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you. i will attempt to be brief we want to get a few points that are raised vertically one in comments about the notice that of given and with respect to the notice that internal revenue factually incorrect arrest frankly rather hard to accept one of the public commenters brought up didn't say it but the envelope he received notice the first point i'll make that is an admission he received notice but secondly, ontario to it was said from crown castle but that the return address from

santa fe and somehow the argument is that that doesn't constitute the value of notice he got it and received it from crown castle nothing in the ordinance saying the return address needed to be san francisco addresses we're being urged that somehow receiving notice but disregarding the received notice explicit constitute valid notice i'll respectfully suggest that can't be right and second incorrect assertion somehow the notices received didn't tell people how to pursue an appeal i'll reader within 15 calendar days of the this noticing notice any person may appeal to this the board of appeals they must be filed in person generally the board of

appeals requires no appointment to file an appeal for further information to schedule an appointment contact the board of appeals or call by telephone it is just simply incorrect to challenge on that basis and claim that incorrecting that the no didn't tell people how to object and people put up several slides of doubted power lines we're talking about here is not power lines we're talking about wireless facilities we're not talking about pg&e transmission lines or distributions lines which is what the photos has to do with with the power lines we're not dealing with our third we come back goldstein to this r

f emissions they're just something the federal government has already indicated and all right. been council bids the city attorney can't be basis for denying the permit you've heard from the planning department that the public health department department does its own testing and the facilities generate less than one percent of allowable r f emissions so with that, i would urge you to deny the appeal. >> and we'll hear rebuttal from the department. >> gene chang public works i don't have anything to add nonetheless unless you have questions for me commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> handle this similarly.

>> yeah. a couple of comments i think that one is that in this instance i did not find that the notification process was defective the documents was provide in the brief we saw the radius map and checked a couple of them the question of the notice itself whether it k3406r78d to what was issued with the actual permit was therefore i find that the permit itself is defective. >> would you like to make a motion commissioner agriculture move to. >> before you make our motion let me say there's a lot of discussion about health and federal law and it is hard for lay people to understand that

there is a tie-in our hands when federal law says one thing and the city says another usually federal law prevails the custom in san francisco sometimes if not federal to ignore it, it is not that the board is george anything if so just the law is quite clear what we can and cannot do so i want to say that as a point of clarification. >> and commissioner i'll let you make your mows motion but i have a reserve if yours fails and i think here we actually have a good view issue and have changing of the overall

neighborhood characterization issue it is golden gate park it is one of our city treasures there are views down this street and towards golden gate park and this flooring a it offers and if of a definition of a good view it is a good view and also i think the appearance of those needs or cantonese or whatever on top of poles which will obscure that view keeping with article 25 it shouldn't check the character i have that in reserve if you're motion falsehood. >> i'll move to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on

the basis that notice was defective. >> okay on that based on that motion by commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries on a vote of 4 to one. >> we'll take a short break. >> welcome back to the wednesday, october 7, 2015, meeting the san francisco general hospital we're now calling item number 8 versus the department of public works bureaucracy of street use and mapping on 33 avenue protesting the 2015 to network of inc. of a wireless box for

the construction of a personal wireless service this is application you have 7 men's. >> okay. >> yeah. my name is cam none you didn't know i had the same objection of other appellants secondly, tonight is getting late i'll cut to the chase my major concerns that a in our case the to telephone pole that is used is more than hundred and 50 feet apart so this is means either using those hundred and have on radius raised in notification is not going to be covering all of them because of the circle

and not having any you know can't cover all the area if you use one you can't cover the other residents if you pick one you can't do both of them so it is only 50 percent of the residents that are getting notification didn't get that okay secondly, when they do the posting on the telephone pole they only have 3 pages not photo simulation as required by article 25 that means that people go there and don't know what's going on they make act go as i received those later from crown castle he talked to people in the

neighborhood i notice that they didn't inventing send any notification to the 8 hundred box i'm on the seven hundred block the house is near the photo so the 800 block explicit receive any notification and also the other pole on the opposite side of the street that is about 6 house apart and also there are a diagonal i do the calculation and a side market and all raised in that second pole they don't you know half of them not notification at all so, please on that i request the board to reject this permit thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sir.

>> thank you and indulge martin fine man on behalf of the crown castle the issue raised by the appellant here has to do with notice at this point in the evening you all rekite the notice by heart the notice requirement require noticing to people owners and residents within hundred and 50 feet to neighborhood association within three hundred feet and posted on conspicuous place on the poles. >> could you raise the - >> thank you. >> the 3 movies of notice mailed notice to residents within hundred and 50 feet, mailed notice see to neighborhood association and posted on pole on conspicuous place crown castle filed with

the notice and have prove and the department of public works concurs that was done properly what is mrapd complained about not part the noticing the gentleman that spoke said that has to do with with the installation potential installation on the seven hundred block and complain what about folks on the 8 hundred blocks the requires requirements are hundred and 50 feet not the next blockhead and 50 feats the gentleman last claimed that one or more instances the photos simulation that was posted was vandalized and torn do you think that's certainly not crown castles fault they gave proper notice and obviously someone that protests or outburst to

whether wireless box or any kind of a permit simply can't void a permit being issues or issued the notice is the powerful if someone vandalized a notice that didn't defeat the fact the notice was given and we know that again, the the proof is in the pudding that notice was given it is sufficient it generated at least a 4 protests to the hoff and the appeal tonight finally the appellant raised within others claim about notice has to do with with an issue of whether you should measure based on one or two poles that's an interesting question but something not it is clear that is required under the ordinance besides the appellant there was another person not